I snickered the morning of 9/11

Yes. I got up, brushed my teeth, started some coffee, and sat down at my computer that morning. My home screen has been CNN for a long time. Up came the CNN main screen with the headline in huge type which said America Under Attack. I snickered!

You see, around that time there had been a lot of website hijackings, so I assumed it had happened to CNN. A few seconds later, I realized it wasn't a joke and turned on the TV to find the combined attacks being covered on every channel.

That's my 9/11 story. I'm sure some of you have more interesting ones, be they happy or sad or tragic. How did you hear about it? How did it affect you? How is it continuing to affect you?

Replies to This Discussion

@Alyson - we've lost more Americans in Little George W's faux-war in Iraq, than we did in the Twin Towers. In that sense, bin Laden won - he got us to unnecessarily throw our young in front of bullets and to withdraw some of our citizens' liberties.

Thinking about whether or not Bin Laden 'won' would require knowing what the hell Bin Laden was trying to accomplish. Do you really think his goal was to tie the U.S. up in a Middle East occupation? Do you really think he 'hated freedom'? He's dead. He died hiding in a compound in Pakistan. That's his outcome. The rest has more to do with our ambitions than it did with his.

I think he succeeded in doing something that gave encouragement to the elements who hate America in the sense that he showed them that relatively few people could do unimaginable damage. He succeeded in stirring things up in the Middle East, which is always in the interest of the Islamic fundamentalists. He may have got a bonus from some of the subsequent actions of the Bush Administration, but since we can't roll back time and give Bush a "do over," that's just speculation.

Most of the radical Islamicists want theocracies established - so in that regard I would argue twitter has done more for the cause than Bin Laden.

As for rallying people to attack U.S. interests, one might say his 1998 fatwa succeeded - but other than U.S. interests in occupied countries, I'm not sure the U.S. is facing any more hostility than before 9/11.

I was in high school at the time. In art class, which was right across from the main office, and through the open door I saw the TV showing the towers burning, and I went to see what movie was the trailer for... and then I realized it was on CNN and it was actually happening.

I was in a military hospital in Belgium with struggles of my own. I only gave it a passing thought. What shocked me was one US Air Force DOCTOR the day after who said "we should nuke them!". I asked who should be nuked, so he rattled off a list of rather arbitrary countries, not one of which was Iraq or Afghanistan. Then I asked which on that list should be nuked, "GOD would tell us to just do them all!". Here was a man who was meant to be a healer advocating the indiscriminate use of thermonuclear weapons against ordinary people in almost any country that might be a suspect ! Now I will grant you this particular guy was a total arse even when he engaged his brain properly, but it was chilling. As it turns out the USA did use WMDs and a disproportionate response.

First, Judith, let me make it clear that not all Americans felt the way your doctor did. And none would have supported the invasion of Iraq, had we known the WMD fiasco was a lie. Your own country is probably even more steeped in stories of Nazi Germany than mine, so it should be obvious to what extent politicians can whip up public opinion when it serves their purpose.

As for Afghanistan, the Taliban had control of the country, and our intelligence indicated that they had the power to turn bin Ladin over for punishment, had they chosen to do so. we made the consequences of failing to do so clear to all who would listen. They chose to harbor him. Do you not feel that any of the blame falls on them?

Many, many innocent Afghan civilians died needlessly, but did the Taliban meet us with tanks and planes? They fired from schoolhouses and mosques, so that any returned fire would be sure to harm innocents or damage "sacred" shrines - where was their concern?

I personally have no bloodlust, but having already tried once earlier to attack the twin towers, it should be obvious to any that the man had to be prevented from doing any more harm. I would personally rather have seen him imprisoned for the remainder of his life. The survivors and the friends and loved ones of those who were crushed beneath tons of steel and concrete, will continue to suffer for the rest of their lives, while bin Ladin feels nothing.

First of all did i say ALL american felt the way of that particular one i described as an arse ? No. Second, what has nazi Germany got to do with this discussion, trying to work that one out, it's seems something of a stretch to me.

Yes the Taliban had control of some three quarters of Afghanistan but on On October 4, 2001 the Taliban agreed to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan blocked the offer as it was not possible to guarantee his safety. On October 7, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the U.S. made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer, and stated that the U.S. would not negotiate their demands. I guess then the question is did the USA want Bin Laden or regime change most of all ?

I do agree Bin laden should have been captured and tried, but I suspect too many worms would have come out of that trial (not that much of any trial of his would have been allowed to be aired if the Gitmo "trials" are anything to go by).
Regards,
Judith vd R.

RE: "First of all did i say ALL american felt the way of that particular one i described as an arse ?" - no, you did not, nor did I say you did. I was simply making a statement of fact.

RE: "Second, what has nazi Germany got to do with this discussion...." - if you have no awareness of how Hitler's rhetoric stirred up the German people to fall behind his cause, then you likely have not watched many of the old news reels of the era. My point was that political leaders can have that effect, and that Americans are not immune to it.

I see no reason as to why bin Laden should have been accorded the special privilege of being tried according to Islamic law, when the crimes he committed weren't against Muslims. I suspect the US wanted bin Laden, but declined to capitulate to conditions. The Taliban couldn't have been too concerned about the consequences, or they would have handed him over unconditionally.

Gitmo was, and is, a travesty of justice and of all of the principles America is supposed to stand for - you will get no argument from me there. That Gitmo was a Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld innovation, I can understand - it shames me to see that Obama has allowed it to continue.

Judith, are there no wackos among your countrymen? No people who overreact? I am sure there are.

As for the followup question you proposed, I think most English speakers would find it hard to interpret, unless by "stated" you meant "sated" (satisfied). I'll assume the latter. My own answer will be unsatisfactory, I'm sure. My answer would be "Quite possibly, unless some terrorist commits another act of terror in the name of 9/11." Since that appears to have just happened with the murder of our ambassador to Libya and several of his coworkers, we'll see.